rajaratnam retnajothy's Forum Activity
| 95 posts in 1 forum

nick carter wrote:
I question this. It seems to me there is only fear and the false sense of security we create as a reaction to it. Real security (if there is such a thing) would have to be rooted in awareness of that which has neither beginning nor end, eternity, immortality, no-thingness, timelessness, the immeasurable, the boundless, etc.

Why do you say the real security is must be rooted in the awareness that which has neither beginning nor end,eternity,immortality,nothingness timelessness.the immeasurable.the boundless,etc.
Is it because Krishnaji says it or Pauld says it or do you have a glimpse of it or are you living in that or a believe or what?Will you be able to say how you got that idea?.

nick carter wrote:
I say it because there is no security in life as we know it. We are mortal and therefore insecure. So if there is such a thing as security, it cannot be in what we know, in what is limited, time-bound, etc.

nick carter wrote:
Thoughts are something real and can be terrifying in and of themselves. The question is whether we need to scare ourselves; whether we're willing to be influenced by our own thoughts to our detriment. The problem is not that we mistake thoughts for what they represent, but that we use thought aggressively. That's what we need to be aware of.

We know thought is memory,This has been clearly explained by K.But our self interest has is not alowing us to drop thought.I think we are happy to be with thought.Once K said in his discussion in Sri Lanka.that you all must be doing very well here as you are not willing to change.The same thing is happening to us here.We are satisfied with the position here.We are not sensitive to the suffering of
humanity.
Why should one be scared of thought.We need be aware of not only of thought but everything now and for ever.K also says it is not possible to be aware at every moment.We have lot of expectation including to be nothing and to be free. This too prevents to be free.Expectation is also thought.Must be aware of all these.

Rasmus Tinning wrote:
If you see a bus coming, you feel ?insecure? and get out of the way. But when you are sitting quietly at home, why should you feel insecure? Because future and past are represented in your mind in the form of thought. You may not consciously think of something threatening, but it is there in the back of your mind ? and still it is thought. K says that psychological fear is always associated with thought. There is never freedom from thought. That is why life feels so heavy.

kinfonet quote of the day although given in one or two lines helps us to ponder upon.
Todays quote is."What is meditation?Why should one meditate? Tofind that out stop meditating."When I pondered on it I felt when I meditate or want to meditate I want to find the truth of life.I have an idea, I have only the thought to know.The thought interfierse.And there is no meditation.The meditation comes on its own I don't know when it comes.

kinfonet of the "day today" of yesterday the quotation is
"From the beginning we must be very clear that you are not being told what to do or what to think."
This means to me do not do anything because you are told or do not think what you are told.What does this mean ?

Rasmus Tinning wrote:
But even if we say that we are not afraid of death, but of its representation in the mind, it doesn´t explain why we are afraid of death.

Few in the world are not afraid is true I think.They are who are old and have no one to look after if they fall sick.Age is a main factor.When one is of middle age He has many responsibility such as educating children,also the very attached families do not like to die early.It depends on the catogries of people.Each one has his own reasons.If one can die from moment to moment there will be no fear of what we call death.This is logic.

Shall we see today's quote of the day.
Personally to the speaker there is no psychological evolution."
Shall we ponder on this.
I don't know why K says personally.But it is a fact for him.He should have said catogarilly that ther is no psychological evolution.

nick carter wrote:
When I ask why it is I'm not happy, what is it that I'm referring to? Am I distressed, anxious about the future, bedeviled by the past, or am I comparing the way I feel with a fond memory or an idea of what-should-be? Why can't I just be what-is, however unwanted or unacceptable I identify it as being? If I don't like the way I feel, why can't I change it? If I can't change the way I feel, why resist it?

For all your question the answer is in today's kinfonet quote of the day.I am copying below the quote of the day.
"you see man imprisoned by innumerable walls.walls of religion,of social.political and national limitations,walls created by his own creations ambitions,aspirations.fears.hopes.security,prejudices,hate & love."
Your questio Why can't I be just be what-is?We cannot be just be because we have a DESIREto change.Note the desire to change.Resistance is self centered activity.The EGO.

max greene wrote:
You and I and everyone else are living beings. Thinking is an action by the living, and by thinking each of us has constructed over time a thought structure called the Self. It is this Self that desires, suffers, struggles, and that "cannot change."

The travail of the Self is actually not at all our travail. We are before the Self. The Self is our creation, and it is the created Self that suffers, struggles, etc. Not us!

Not only you and I are living beings but every thing in the world including animals plants rocks etc are living things.Thinking is part of life.What has gone wrong is thinking has taken a wrong turnThis is what I feel.From the beginning of birth self is there. When the man grows the truth has to be seen.Truth only will free man.

max greene wrote:
What I'm saying is this: We are aware of this life around us, this existence of ours--full of troubles and sorrow, admittedly. But since we are living beings, why aren't we aware of this immediate condition of living, now, which is neither the past nor the known--and therefore free of trouble and sorrow? Seems to me to be a logical question.

What you say is true.Why are we not living in the now?What is your answer?
I think it is the desite to live in the now.It is the desire to live.We always want to be the first.Fear of giving up all what we have.Mind is never empty.So many reasons.

max greene wrote:
You wrote, "Why are we not living in the now?"
It would seem to me that we are. If we are actually living, there isn't any choice--it has to be now, otherwise we're dead!

We are living physically now.is true.What we are discussing here is psycologically we are not in the now.We act and speak from the past knowledge,memory.When we meeta person We react from the past knowledge of him etc.

max greene wrote:
If we are aware that we are speaking from past knowledge, prejudices, opinions, etc.--if we are aware as we are speaking, aren't we already free of the prejudices and opinions, and aren't we using knowledge correctly? If we are fully aware as we speak but still use prejudice and opinion, and use knowledge to deliberately conceal or confuse, I guess you could call this criminal

I think you are correct when you say that when we are fully aware at the time of speaking from past knowledge etc we are at that time free.But at that time the awareness should come by itself and not the thought.

max greene wrote:
Yes, awareness is always before thinking and thought. One has to be aware of something, observe it, before it can be recalled from memory by thinking. Then one starts to build a thought structure around it!

I think in awareness one is not there so the person cannot say he was aware.But one can be alert and see that he is prejudiced and at that moment there is a possibility for the prejudice to disappear.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
If one WANTS to have quite mind, will self knowledge really help.

One thing if one wants to have a quiet mind the mind will not be quiet,because it iis desirous.The other thing one must know what is meant by self knowledge.I think it is self knowing from moment to moment.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Why am I obsessed, with understanding the "teaching"? Why do I divide life and living, from what Krishnamurti talks about?

Most of us do not understand the teachings.It is not understand but we are unable to give up our old believes and conditioning.By will one cannot give up,because will is a desire.Desire means the ego is there.I had been following K for about 60 years.But I am still struggling.There are so many obstacles.Pride might be one of the cause.Immediately I realise I am proud that I have followed him for so many years.I am told there are a few say (one or two) who have realised at the first sight.They are not known.So you need not dispair.Awareness is the only thing what is required.What is meant by awareness has to be understood first.I am just posting what I felt now.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Sir, while on the journey of self-knowing from moment to moment, if the mind comes across a desire, then what should it do ? Can this mind be quite ?.

Dr.First I think the journey of self knowing is not possible for a long time.This is my experience.Also K had said this.I don't know whether I am conditioned by the statement of K.As for desire to cross one must be aware of this too.Thoughts interfere every now and then.One has to be aware at each moment of this appearence.Mr.Paul is the right person to answer this question.But unfortunately he is not appearing now.It will be good if we can get his email address.Being aware at every moment is to be aware of the appearence of these desires wnen these appear.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Yet we feel confident enough to assert our opinions about this and that? Everyone here, claims to not understand K, then goes on to explain their personal interpretations about it. What does K mean, when he says do no thing like that?

There is no personal interpritation.There cannot be a personal interpritation.What he says is always clear.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Yes, what Krishnamurti says, is very clear. So why don't we understand what he is saying? You said, in one of your previos posts, that you do not understand what he is saying. Now you say you do.

What I say is we or I understand what K means that I understand the meaning,the truth of what K says.And when I say I don't understand it means I don't understand the way to introduce it in my living.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Yes, sir, movement of attention in the active present illuminating everything that comes before it is the way to dissolve conditioning. The lack of attention will be there, but as soon as the mind understands this inattention, the movement of attention is operating.

There is only attention.When there is attention'I' is not there.Hence no thought and any activity of thought is not there.Hence there is only what is.'What is' is truth.

nick carter wrote:
Self-inquiry is important because you know how mistaken and delusional people can be about themselves, and not wanting to be mistaken and delusional yourself, you try, despite a bias, to regard your own conciousness as honestly and objectively as anything else. Of course you continue to be mistaken and delusional, but unconvinced of anything about yourself, you're continually open to new, self-deflating information, rather than seeking constantly to reinforce a self-image.

Self inquiry is important,why?It is not that because K said it or X said it.It is because we all including you and me have false image of ourselves also false believes anb false ideas.We think we know everything and go on advising others.Can a blind man lead another blind man?We not only try to lead the other but tease the other.What is actually necessary is for each one of us to know who he himself is.The other thing is ws know what other man is but not what we are.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Iam encountering the same difficulty as we all feel now in taking JK to others. gb

Kinfonet,kfa,kfi and others are trying to do that.That is to take JK to others.And it can only be possible by those who have understood his teachings.

We must be very careful that we do not mislead them.We must be careful that we do not introduce a new cult.About this K always had a fear.We can only encourage young to read K's books and to listen to K'recorded tapes.Otherwise I feel Mr.Paul is the only person who can direct young to know K's teachings.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
iam in my own way .first by definetely understanding and having understood his own limitations or everyones limitation in putting in to words the how, holistically taking the fragrance which will take care of ..
The birds that eat honey nest and brood on that tree on whose tip, they say, is the sweet fruit. No one who does not know the father eats that.

Sir, one should first see that knowledge corrupts.From your posts I gather that you have read vedhas and all scriptures.And also you are comparing these with K's teaching.When one compares he is not listening.I too was brought up in the hindu tradition and have fairly good knowledge of vedhas etc.What I am trying to say is as K says knowledge corrupts and knowledge of the absolute corrupts absolutely.The mind must be empty to know the truth.

Rasmus Tinning wrote:
Life is a struggle for existence. That is why our consciousness has been conditioned to duality, to isolation and resistance, to greed and conflict. Most people are basically like lions round a kill. They don?t feel the least embarrassed when they push somebody else away. To be callous and acquisitive is an advantage in any society.
Krishnamurti turns the whole thing upside down. If you want to have a chance of coming upon the immeasurable, you must lay a foundation of innocence. Other religions teachers say something similar, but K substantiates it psychologically. He brings it from the realm of mysticism into the realm of recognizable everyday psychology.
Krishnamurti proposes that I bring about order by being aware of my daily activities.

I have discovered that I escape direct awareness. I could use various problematic relationships as a mirror, but I instantly blame the other. I could face what is, but I am always in the future or I escape into art and entertainment. I am beginning to see all this fairly clearly. But here I am in winter darkness, facing days and days of boring work and then old age and death. Is it really possible to absolutely naked to that awful reality?This pragraph too is by RASMUS.

Sir,please pardon me.My views are all contradictory to your views.Yes life is astruggle for existance.But I will not give any excuses for being conditioned.Why analyse the reason for it.Analysis is a waste of time.I am conditioned is a fact.So I know my vision is distorted.So I know I will have to be vigilant.

Krishnamurti is not suggesting any method such as psychological or any such things.He only wants that we see the truth.He rejects the teacher hood or does not accept anyone as followers.
Why should one be bored or afraid of death.In otherwords why shoul there be fear at all.I have to question these to see the fact or truth.

About innocence.This has to come by itself.If I want to be innocent then it is not innocent but it is just the oppoite.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Iam not approaching veda in traditional way. After Jk only I saw some meaning in Veda and that way i found JK is the beginning (and end also or no end) and just continuing.... gb when I was introduced to JK I could not understand. later i found JK opened the fountain head. If we are responsible then we understand the Vedas are not preserved for millenums by some fools and that is not understood by them which is more funny.Words are limited....when the understanding comes you will find meaning but it will come on its own and we have to pay the right attention and prepared for it. Again words dont describe properly.... thank you gb

Thank you sir for your post.In fact I also was able to understand veda more after meeting K only.
Also Buddhist say they understand Buddha's teachings only after listening tokAlso Christians say
'what bible is saying the same thiing'.As I am from a country where Buddhists are in the majority I know many saying 'what he is repeating what Buddha said and do not listen to K.And even press do not give any importance they are more conservative than orthodox Hindus or Christians.This comparison prevents seeing truth directly.We must be very watchful.As K says knowledge corrupts.and knowledge of the absolute corrupts absolutely.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
If one sees the 'fact' of something and 'knows' that his vision is distorted, then transformation has occured. Then there is no need to add that one has to be extra vigilant. This statement may show that the knowledge is secondhand, and so, non-transformative.

We know that we are conditioned.Don't you know sir?And hence we know that our vision is distorted.That's why I say one must be aware of this or be vigilant.
The main thing is first we must know that we are conditioned otherwise what is one trying to get freed of.I don't know whether I am clear.

nick carter wrote:
We talk about "the immeasurable", but what is it that determines whether something is measurable or not? Anything that can be perceived can be measured, however brilliantly or idiotically, so how do we know when something can't be measured at all? If the immeasurable is not just an idea, another religious notion, it is that which stops the movement of measurement in the brain. Or to put it the other way, the immeasurable is the brain's realization of how its ceaseless effort to know everything is a stupefying waste of energy.

How can one speak or know about immeasurable.Immeasurable is unknown.it cannot be even pondered.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Why are you comparing then? What all you tell is very much obvious and that too for any one who understood JK. 1.You yourself mentioned that you find it difficult to remain without thoughts is difficult. 2.You said you have read veda. will you tell me which meaning you understood, the psychological, biological, modern physical, mystical, the understanding is just copius. i too have read Bible, Quran, and it is true they also give better meaning, but without any comparison just understand the way we see things as they are, and also jesus, buddha, Jk enlightening us at different ages are all due to the vibrations. This is a programme like softwares for computers. There is a key to understand this which is unique foryou to open and this is easier for those who understood JK. Iam not talking this to those orthodox people who are not open. I introduce JK only to my son and not Veda. I see somehting new that iam sharing with you.Please listen. gb

Rasmus Tinning wrote:
Sir, what is really the problem? Is it that we have perfectly understood the teachings, but we don?t seem to able to live according to them? We know that we are conditioned, but somehow it doesn?t have a transformative effect?
Or is the problem the quality of our understanding? We may be able to indirectly quote the teachings, but it is only an intellectual affair. And the irony of it is that this knowledge may actually be an impediment to understanding the truth. It is not being naked to the truth. It is a mechanical response that is the very denial of truth.
Of course one has to understand the teachings verbally before one can go deeper. But K says, put everything in its right place, and is obvious that the intellectual level has a very limited significance. In my opinion we can only approach the truth if we place intellectual understanding in its right place and admit that we don?t really understand the teachings. We may ?know? that we are conditioned, but do we understand it as a fact?

What is wrong?You are repeating what I have said.Don't jump into any conclusions.I don't understand what you mean by your saying to keep intellectual understanding in its right place.You see sir whether you truly understand K.I do not understand when you say we may know that we are conditioned and then asking "but do we understand it as a fact'.